(catching up)
Thanks for writing this note, Sebb. It completely aligns with my
opinion. In the docs from Oracle which you earlier linked, method
additions *do not* break binary compatibility. I'm a little confused why
this is being brought up for at least a second time now (could have been
third).
sebb wrote:
I have just looked again at the Clirr errors.
Apart from the interface method additions, the changes are:
*) Replacing org.apache.commons.vfs2.provider.tar.TarEntry by
org.apache.commons.compress.archivers.tar.TarArchiveEntry in several
places.
TarEntry has been dropped, however the class was package-private so it
was clearly not part of the public API.
And likewise, methods using cannot have been part of the API.
*) replacing org.apache.commons.vfs2.provider.tar.TarInputStream by
org.apache.commons.compress.archivers.tar.TarArchiveInputStream as the
return type for a couple of methods
Again, TarInputStream has been dropped, and it was also
package-private. So again the public API must be OK.
So I think we are OK as far as BC is concerned.
Source will need to be updated if it uses any of the interfaces that
have been updated:
FileContent
FileName
FileObject
FileSystemManager
RandomAccessContent
If there may be another 2.x release, we should make sure that the
interfaces have suitable abstract class implementations that can be
extended instead of implementing the interface.
Then external source will only need to be updated once.
Assuming others agree with my analysis, these findings need to be
documented in the RN.
On 7 May 2016 at 06:29, Gary Gregory<garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Ralph Goers<ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
wrote:
That was me. I have had those thoughts and mentioned them a few times
since Java 7 was released. But absolutely no effort has been expended to do
it.
My personal opinion is that I am comfortable with releasing 2.1 with the
issues Gary mentions. There should have been 10 releases for VFS 2 by now.
Well, yeah, RERO would have been great but it was not on high enough on my
priority list too ;-) The issue we have now would have popped each time we
wanted to break BC, so we could have gotten a better feel for it with RERO
and 10 VFS 2.x releases under our belts! But we are stuck with a Big Bang
release now.
I would request another RC from the RM, and let the community decide by
VOTE.
Gary
Ralph
On May 6, 2016, at 8:40 PM, Matt Sicker<boa...@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought there were talks about using Java 1.7 APIs in 3.0 that would
eliminate the need for some classes in commons-vfs, or am I confusing
that
with another commons project?
On 6 May 2016 at 17:46, Gary Gregory<garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
OK, I've gone through the Clirr report and fixed the low-hanging fruits
in
trunk. I think we need another RC. I've also update Apache Commons
Compress
and Net to their current versions.
Then what we have to live with for 2.1 is BC breaks in two narrower
areas:
- Added methods to interfaces.
- Changes in the Tar classes from our own Tar classes to Apache Commons
Compress' Tar classes.
That's how good it's going to get for now IMO.
I would be perfectly OK with repackaging for 3.0 but then this would
open
the door to other changes that folks might want to make. I would be OK
with
saying this is 3.0 as is in this case.
I'm still not 100% comfortable with the BC based on my experience with
large projects with deep transitive dependencies.
If the community VOTEs to release trunk (yes, another RC please) as 2.1
then I'll live with it. Releasing as 3.0 (as is) would be safe and
conservative.
Gary
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 3:00 PM, sebb<seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6 May 2016 at 22:40, Gary Gregory<garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm creating a new thread here instead of hijacking the VOTE thread.
First, let me express my gratitude to Stian Soiland-Reyes for RM'ing a
release, I'm sure he did not know what he was getting himself into!
;-)
Huh? ... that was/is Josh Elser.
Who does (also) deserve many thanks.
Part of me writing this here is flushing out for myself, voters, and
casual
observers what it is we are doing ;-)
We have BC breakage in VFS 2.1 RC1 in two areas:
- Adding methods to public interfaces
AFAIK that is only a SOURCE breakage.
- Other stuff like removing fields, changing fields from protected to
private, changing method arg types.
That does break BC if the objects are part of the public API.
Details:
https://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/commons-vfs2/clirr-report.html
I see three areas that need consideration:
(0) For simple clients that only use the higher-level interfaces and
methods, there are no problems. So this is a non-issue marker I
suppose.
Whether or not that affects simple clients depends on exactly which
fields and method args have changed. Are they part of the public API?
And if so, will simple clients use that part of the API?
(1) For advanced clients that get their fingers in deep into VFS, they
break. Example:
- org.apache.commons.vfs2.provider.tar.TarFileObject: Accessibility of
field entry has been weakened from protected to private.
- org.apache.commons.vfs2.provider.webdav.WebdavFileProvider: Removed
field
AUTHENTICATOR_TYPES
- and so on.
Remedies for these kinds of breaks are simple and easy: Just change
stuff
back and mark @deprecated in Javadoc and @Deprecated.
(2) For providers, they break unless they extend our root classes like
AbstractFileObject and DefaultFileSystemManager, and use our default
classes like DefaultFileContent.
For "simple" providers, there probably won't be any issue, but who
knows?
Does anyone have a 2.0 provider?
For advanced providers that do more of their own thing instead of
reusing
our base classes, then breakage.
It seems to me that we should pick the low-hanging fruits and fix the
simple stuff.
All of this is moot if we were to go to 3.0 now.
Which would not be source or binary compatible by design.
Thoughts?
The easiest for Commons would obviously be to abandon 2.x and release
3.0.
That would be a chance to fix APIs properly.
However, given the work that Josh has already put into 2.1 that seems
a waste of effort if we can either:
- eliminate the BC breaks, OR
- satisfy ourselves that the breaks will not affect (m)any users.
Gary
--
E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action<http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
--
E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action<http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
--
Matt Sicker<boa...@gmail.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
--
E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action<http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
